The clash of civilizations – an excuse for escalated conflicts

Isn’t the constant republishing of “The Clash of Civilizations” by Samuel P. Huntington amazing? Initially published in 1996 (and in 2000 in France), this book had a strong influence on the US State Department, a few self-righteous intellectuals, some diplomatic and political circles, amongst others. An expert in the US National Security Council in the Carter Administration, Samuel P. Huntington was a professor at Harvard University.

In the book, every reader was able to find a justification for a response to 9/11. The whole world was reduced to civilizations whose cultural origins were not only antagonistic but also led them to mutual conflicts.

Summarising those predictions at the end of his book, Huntington wrote a catastrophe scenario like a huge Hollywood film: a local dispute between China and Vietnam leads to a world conflict; because of the domino effect, two sides are clearly defined. Here is how Huntington saw them: “De facto, the United States, Europe, Russia and India are involved in a global conflict against China and the major part of Islam. What can be the outcome of such a war?”

By using tensions and constructing catastrophe scenarios, it is not difficult to stir up fears and introverted assertion of people’s identity as well as to justify different military interventions. Institutionalising division is dangerous, as it theorises that the West is an endangered civilization facing Islam, China and multiculturalism. It is also dangerous because it conveys an ideology of domination of one civilization over the others in the name of religious and economic interests. On the contrary, wars in Iraq and Afghanistan and numerous military interventions have only resulted in various interests being handed over to big oil companies and the like. Far from being a clash of civilizations, this is an intellectual weapon justifying military intervention and pro US policies.

Some very special ‘Humanists’

Moreover, every country has its own warmongers, who justify the axis of evil and righteous wars in an alarmist tone. In his book Geopolitics of Apocalypse Frédéric Encel, a professor at Ecole Nationale d’Administration (ENA), explains: “‘War is a bloody stupid thing!’ will forever be the rallying cry of all the citizens with some heart and reason, all those who take life as the supreme value, who love life passionately. This truth which cannot be exceeded has always been my opinion”. Here is a Humanist who espouses peace, but the following lines have a bitter taste of war and death: “Up to the limit of toleration, however. Up to the breaking point when continuing with pacifism means political and cultural suicide [Here again is the well-known clash of civilizations – Author’s Note]. Up to the ultimate step beyond which another “Munich” marks selfrenunciation, betrayal of one’s own values, desertion and cowardice. Up to this blow stricken by some totalitarian power …at the heart of a civilization of unarmed, anonymous citizens, people in the streets and offices. In front of their morbid and archaic fanaticism [the terrorists’ fanaticism – Author’s Note], war is imposed and becomes righteous. A war that opposes, and contrary to their will, systems of fundamental values rather than civilization, a war that opposes educational, social, political, juridical, institutional and philosophical models that are deeply antagonistic. A war for liberty”.

That is the conclusion of his book. F. Encel does not demand the clash of civilizations but he covers “righteous” wars with the cloak of liberty and democracy. Is that a proof of Humanism? Is there anything to be gained for humankind in the confrontation everywhere? By accepting Huntington’s views, those aggressive “Humanists” criticise the “clash of civilizations” while they justify the aim. With heartfelt words – or their hands on their guns – they consider that the civilising mission of the West is not over. Here are the two sides of the same medal, the crusaders, champions of the defence of civilization and the missionaries, stamped with morality, both for the same result: wars and destruction.

With those vague fears and anxious allusions, a whole geopolitical alarmist literature has been corroborating the fact that the next major confrontation will take place between the US and China. Didn’t Huntington the prophet state that “whatever the economic links between Asian and American societies, the major cultural gap between them excludes any junction”? The Clash of Civilizations is a reactionary book, a plan to exclude five sixths of the world population. We can ascribe to Huntington the idea of “preventing a major war between civilizations”. In his view, “it is necessary for leading States to abstain from intervening in conflicts occurring in civilizations different from their own”. It is the “rule of abstention” strengthened by “concerted mediation” which “assumes that leading States agree to keep in check or stop border conflicts between States or groups within their own sphere of civilization”. In the age of globalization, when a few political and economic leaders think that their spheres include the whole world, it is not an easy task, particularly since an essential feature is missing in this analysis: humankind.

Humanists should not get involved in this biased debate in which the clash of civilizations is the axiom. The clash is somewhere else, more on a social and economic level. Contrary to that, Free Thinkers believe that it is essential to expose the role of religions, all the religions, which use the fears of the economic crisis and social and intellectual poverty. Simplistic views, advocated by these modern crusaders, are an insult to Reason.

David Gozlan